New PBW game : "Mediocrity"

[teal]

As leader of the Yawning collective I was always in pretty bad shape (yet another reason why the scores as such are screwy! They kept saying I was number #1 when I KNEW I was really in very bad shape...). I had three (count em, three) systems to myself (basically, my home systems) because of being right next to other players and having nebulaue wherever there wasn't another player...

I always thought that Gravey was really in first place and sided with the Serpent against him on that regard. My biggest mistake was waiting too long to attack Gravey, I had basically the same fleet I attacked him with in place 5 or 6 turns before then and was just waiting to attack simultanuesly with Serpent. But my one advantage was that since I did not have anywhere to expand TO, I had been building many more warships than everyone else. I should have pushed my advantage then as hard and fast as I could and hoped for the best. This is just so counter to my usual playing style that I was caught of guard...

Fun game, I just wish someone would come and kill my remaining planets (still in full riot), so that I could withdraw...

[Slynky]

I guess I don't even matter but will post my comments on the game.

I guess my empire didn't matter much because one empire I had a partnerships with dropped the game with no warning and never set the "AI taking control" setting which resulting in the partnerships being dropped and war being declared and me scrambling to deal with enemy ships and lost planets in the rear of my empire.

BUT, I still had one other partnership going on. WHOA! Change #2...that empire dropped the game and guess what...same thing!

Now, I understand people have RL things that interrupt their games but some warning would be nice AND setting the AI switch would be a plus.

Same thing happened in the Anklebiters game (although I didn't have a partnershp)...I get a T&R agreement, then war is declared, then the same empire asks for a T&R agreement again.

Suffice it to say I have lost much of my interest in multiplayer games. I have a tough enough time playing most people without having my game and efforts messed up by others (RL or not). Just too many variables that can come along and ruin your game.

Not to mention they seem to move much slower than other games.

So I will be very selective about future group games I join. I don't think Mediocrity II will be one of them. It was interesting but I can tell you 8 turns to build a DN at a low-pop planet is a real drag .

Best of luck to the rest of you who strive to rise above mediocrity .

[geoschmo]

Actually if a player is going to drop out of a game and no replacment is available I'd rather they NOT set the "AI make no changes" option. As inept as the AI is, an AI that does nothing is worse. It unbalences the game because whoever is lucky enough to be in position to "harvest" it's empire will get a significant leg up on the rest. Of course this is true to a lesser degree even if the AI is doing it's best, but at least then it can be a nusiance to the players if not an actual factor in teh game.

[Alneyan]

I would rather give some areas under AI direction while leaving other fields outside of the AI rule. What seems to bother Slynky is the AI tendency to break treaties with every single neighbour, and I have to concur with him on this one. Having five wars going on when you take over an Empire can be somewhat annoying. I don't mind if the AI is attempting to build some defences, but I don't want these non-entities to even look at the diplomacy screen.

Or perhaps it is already possible to do so with a few tweaks in the AI files? I cannot say as I haven't delved into these mazes regulating what the AI will *try* to do once left alone.

[gravey101]

Slynky it is a shame you have soured on multi-player. I too have endured the same frustrations that you have, but probably to a lesasr extent. Over the years I have deveoped a pretty good feel for who is reliable and who isn't. I wont join a game where I only know 1 or 2 of the players. If I know that 75% or so are probably ok then I will go for it.

[gravey101]

teal, I think you played it fine - I just got lucky. I managed to catch your fleet on that WP. I was one turn away from destruction. 9 times out of 10 you had me beaten.

[ December 10, 2003, 18:00: Message edited by: gravey101 ]

[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Actually if a player is going to drop out of a game and no replacment is available I'd rather they NOT set the "AI make no changes" option. As inept as the AI is, an AI that does nothing is worse. It unbalences the game because whoever is lucky enough to be in position to "harvest" it's empire will get a significant leg up on the rest. Of course this is true to a lesser degree even if the AI is doing it's best, but at least then it can be a nusiance to the players if not an actual factor in teh game.

I think I disagree. When the treaty is dropped, my colony ships killed, and my planets attacked, I can tell you right away, I'd MUCH rather the AI did nothing. NOW, if the position is not filled soon and the AI plays at its usual weakness, then I (and others) can decide to carve it up and I can tell you it's much easier to do when I can prepare for it and drop the treaty myself (when I'm ready).

So when it comes to a person dropping from the game, in my opinion, to keep the game going as truly as it was, the least harm should be to those empires allied with it. Any long-term effects of the drop can be dealt with much easier that way.